This study claims to identify 5 types of alcoholics. 19%, or 1 in 5, fall into the "functional subtype":

They're generally middle-aged, working adults who tend to have stable relationships, more education, and higher incomes than other alcoholics. They tend to drink every other day, often consuming five or more drinks on drinking days.

Since my wife is a psychiatrist, I have a good handle on the definition of a behavioral "disease". When does fastidiousness cross the line into obsessive-compulsive disorder? When does timidity turn into social phobia? When does an occasional lottery ticket become a gambling addiction? It is a "disease" when it causes trouble in your work, your home life, or your relationships.

But now we have an entire category of "alcoholics" who, by definition, have stable relationships and hold down good jobs. Huh?

I'm not saying that these people shouldn't maybe cut down a little on those "5 or more" nights. But does their behavior really justify this:

Moss warns that while some alcoholic subtypes may function better than others, "in all cases, alcohol dependence must be viewed as a severe disease with a significant adverse impact on health and well-being."

Not just a disease, but a "severe" disease. Better get them to AA right away!!

BTW, all these claims are based on interviews with less than 1500 people, and then scaled up to cover the entire US population. So it's really just scare-mongering attached to shoddy research."Time makes more converts than reason." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Does everyone who has a cocktail before dinner plus two glasses of wine, or 2-3 beers over the course of a night fall into the "functional subtype," too?

I am also unsure when a routine becomes obsessive-compulsive behavior. My own opinion is that most people know when they have a problem.

The best figure I have seen is that one in twelve adults has "issues" with alcohol. In my experience that seems about right. The problem is large enough that it needs to be addressed on a societal level but it hardly justifies paranoia or cries for prohibition.

> Does everyone who has a cocktail before dinner plus two glasses of wine, or 2-3 beers over the course of a night fall into the "functional subtype," too?

Actually, that makes you a "binge drinker". 5 (4 for women) or more drinks "at one sitting" is a "binge", according to the NIH. There is no time limit on "one sitting", so it could cover dinner at a friend's house or a 4-hour poker game or a whole afternoon at the beach. Is your poker game a weekly event? Then you are a "habitual binge drinker" and need immediate intervention. Get thee to a 12-step program!

Sheesh. I hate pseudo-science, especially when it is used to restrict personal liberties."Time makes more converts than reason." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

I don't know whether you can dismiss it as pseudo-science or not. We may have to accept that habitually drinking a six-pack over the course of a lazy Saturday may adversely affect your health, and could thus be called a form of alcoholism.

Is facing that "fact" really going to stop any of us, though? There's no law against "binging" so why worry about it, especially if they're actually calling a spade a spade (which of course is still up for debate).

No, Jake, names DO matter. Calling something a 'disease' provokes a certain set of reactions. 'Diseases' must be prevented and managed and, if possible, cured. Governments get involved. Insurance companies have to pay for treatment. Money is spent on research. That sort of thing.

Just as not every cut or cold or back spasm justifies a medical intervention, not every self-injurious behavior justifies a behavioral health intervention. A lot of people eat too much; only a few will eat until their stomach bursts. A lot of people spend a little more than they should on lottery tickets; only a few will blow the rent or grocery money. The distinction between self-injurious behavior and disease is important for the allocation of resources and the creation of laws and regulations.

Dumbing down the names makes for bad science and worse public policy. Any dictionary will tell you that a 'binge' involves being inebriated for an extended period of time, usually accompanied by risky or destructive behavior. The standard NIH '5/4' definition doesn't even mention inebriation. If your 5 drinks was spread over hours while you were eating dinner, you might not ever have felt buzzed. Still, you binged.

But the dumbed-down definition allows for lots of scary headlines: "Binge drinking on the rise", "20% of adults are binge drinkers", "Binge drinking common on campus". It's an epidemic! Something must be done! Call your State legislators now!

In the meantime, we have no way to measure the incidence of real problem binge drinking, the kind that does need intervention, because there's no slot for that on the questionaires any more."Time makes more converts than reason." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Paul, Is this the same dumbed-down junk-science that the global warming alarmists are using?"If ignorance is bliss, this lesson would appear to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deprive me of happiness, the pursuit of which is my unalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence. I therefore assert my patriotic prerogative not to know this material. I'll be out on the playground." -- Calvin

Bob, if you remember (or go back to check) I accused BOTH sides in that debate of junk reporting and neither side of junk science. I am not qualified to judge the studies and models in use, so I have nothing to say about the science. But I can smell spin and biased reporting from 30 paces.

The take-home message is that all this stuff is suspect, whether it is saying we are all alcoholics or that global warming is bunk. Be skeptical. Read the fine print. Check the funding sources. Cross-reference against other studies. Ask questions. Accept nothing on faith. Everybody has an agenda."Time makes more converts than reason." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

I do not think it is stupid to point out the hypocricy of people who pick and choose which "scientists" they will believe in order to further their political agendas. I was merely pointing out that in Paul's view, any scientist who supports the myth of global warming is absolutely correct, but the scientists who did this study are automagically agenda driven. You can't have it both ways no matter how superior you feel about it."If ignorance is bliss, this lesson would appear to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deprive me of happiness, the pursuit of which is my unalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence. I therefore assert my patriotic prerogative not to know this material. I'll be out on the playground." -- Calvin

First off, no. You don't have that much class. You flat out called Dan an idiot in another thread. Second, as I told Mike in the other thread (you know, the one that's actually about global warming), I called your comment stupid, not you (my thoughts on the matter notwithstanding).

Feel free to attempt a rational argument in that thread. I laid my case out. Discuss.

Paul, I see your point. I don't take the labeling issue quite as seriously, but maybe that's a mistake on my part. I know a couple of psychologists and they don't feel that the binging labels are accurate at all (especially since we've binged on many occasions). I should note that these are actual scientists (they deal with brain damage rehab), not the pollster-types that are making up the alcoholism definitions.

> I was merely pointing out that in Paul's view, any scientist who supports the myth of global warming is absolutely correct, but the scientists who did this study are automagically agenda driven.

If, by "Paul", you mean me, then you really do need to go back and read what I wrote. Carefully. Please don't put words in my mouth. I invite and encourage you to disagree with me, but I will not be put in the position of defending something I did not say.

In particular (and here I thought I had overstressed the point but apparently not), I forecast that a lot of oil-company-funded researchers will soon be strongly supportive of the idea of global warming, not because the underlying science has become more convincing overnight but because it is now in the oil industry's interest for the threat to be real. So these will be global warming supporters who are "agenda driven"."Time makes more converts than reason." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

> I doubt the whole ability to label someone as Alcohol Dependant based on a questionnaire.

Have you ever taken one of the online surveys? I had to program one once, so I looked at several. What a joke! Most are about 20 questions long; 3 "yes" answers and you have a problem and need to get help. But a lot of the questions are written like, "Have you ever blacked-out while drinking?" Not "this week", or "this month", or "this year", but "ever". If you over-did it once when you were 21, before you knew your limit, you're already 1/3 of the way to being "alcohol-dependent". I can't imagine anyone who drinks at all passing one of those things."Time makes more converts than reason." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Ok Paul, I went back and re-read your posts. Looks like I made the mistake of lumping you in with the global warming chicken-little crowd. I guess that since you were pointing out that that the author of the article worked for oil companies, and the source you provided was a leftist front organization, I assumed you were one of Big Al's minions.

I stand corrected. Unless, of course, you ARE one of Big Al's minions? "If ignorance is bliss, this lesson would appear to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deprive me of happiness, the pursuit of which is my unalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence. I therefore assert my patriotic prerogative not to know this material. I'll be out on the playground." -- Calvin

My stance on global warming is complicated by the fact that I can throw a baseball from my front porch into Long Island Sound, and I'm no Carlos Beltran. At 23ft above mean high tide, my house is one of the higher ones in the neighborhood. Half the others floated off their foundations in the '38 hurricane.

Many scientists are predicting a sea-level rise of 20' in my lifetime. If they rise 8', we lose our neighborhood beach (and with it, a big chunk of my home's value). At 12', the neighborhood park goes under (and another chunk of value). At 15', 8 - 10 houses to the east will have to be abandoned. At 20', I'll have waterfront property because all the houses across the street will be gone. But the better view probably won't increase my property value; who'd want to buy in a half-ruined neighborhood when you don't know if levels will rise further?

So global warming is real and immediate for me in a way it just probably isn't for most people. I would be over the moon to find out that the predictions are wrong; I fervently wish it to be the case. But I'd be stupid and irresponsible not to take the possibility seriously. "Sorry kids, I've got nothing to leave you when I die. I bet wrong on the whole global warming thing." No simple answers allowed for me."Time makes more converts than reason." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Paul, it is the same old story. Live next to water, and eventually the water threatens your property. That's why it is a big deal in the real estate/insurance business to have a certificate as to whether or not you live on a flood plain. Oceanside has the same issues.

You pays your money, you takes your chances."If ignorance is bliss, this lesson would appear to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deprive me of happiness, the pursuit of which is my unalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence. I therefore assert my patriotic prerogative not to know this material. I'll be out on the playground." -- Calvin

Exactly. That is why it is so important to know what the chances really are. More research helps quantify the risks.

I think Paul's calling you names, Bob.

I hope that's not how it came across. If so, I apologize. I just mean that for some people, global warming might mean planting a different species of tree in their yard while for me it can mean the loss of my biggest financial asset. The stakes are higher."Time makes more converts than reason." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense

No Paul, that is not how it came across. Jake is being a condescending jerk."If ignorance is bliss, this lesson would appear to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deprive me of happiness, the pursuit of which is my unalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence. I therefore assert my patriotic prerogative not to know this material. I'll be out on the playground." -- Calvin

Nope, Jake is tired of people not using their faculties.For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice. -Hobbes, Leviathan

That's right Joakim, I have a different point of view therefore I incapable of using my faculties. You Europeans are so smart and sophisticated, I tremble at your superior intellect."If ignorance is bliss, this lesson would appear to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deprive me of happiness, the pursuit of which is my unalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence. I therefore assert my patriotic prerogative not to know this material. I'll be out on the playground." -- Calvin

"There you go again." Now where did I say that?For to accuse requires less eloquence, such is man's nature, than to excuse; and condemnation, than absolution, more resembles justice. -Hobbes, Leviathan

Not only is your comment factually incorrect, it is pretty ignorant as well.

Please shed light on my "thinly veiled racism." I would like to learn more about my own thought processes, and how race dictates them."If ignorance is bliss, this lesson would appear to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deprive me of happiness, the pursuit of which is my unalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence. I therefore assert my patriotic prerogative not to know this material. I'll be out on the playground." -- Calvin

Substitute European for Asian or African and see how it reads. I think you're the only one who has ever used "Euro-weenie" in a thread, as well. Another example of that level of class you were trying to claim.

The other comment was leveled at your fear-mongering over the dilution of our culture, language, etc. Many organizations/movements past and present have used similar language in their credos and it ain't a flattering club to belong to.

"My stance on global warming is complicated by the fact that I can throw a baseball from my front porch into Long Island Sound, and I'm no Carlos Beltran. . . . So global warming is real and immediate for me in a way it just probably isn't for most people. . . . I'd be stupid and irresponsible not to take the possibility seriously. "Sorry kids, I've got nothing to leave you when I die. I bet wrong on the whole global warming thing." No simple answers allowed for me."

I can understand your perception of personal risk. I wouldn't want to lose my home due to the actions of billions of other people. However, perhaps you can understand the perspective of a significant fraction of those billions of other people who feel a little incredulous at your attitude we must change our behavior and our economies simply because you don't want to lose your house. Surely our positions on *global* issues shouldn't be decided on the home values of individual people. I understand that this is merely your own personal perspective. But it's your perspective on a global issue. Your home value has no bearing on whether or not the science is correct. It only makes you more susceptible to the scare-tactics of alarmist interpretations of the science. You have provided us a blatant admission of lacking objectivity on this issue. We don't decide issues of quantum physics or evolutionary biology based on your home value. Nor should we decide issues of global climate based on your home value. This is myopic and irrational. But again, it's understandable. People who want to control our behavior will often appeal to our personal fears. It is sad that this purely scientific issue has become political.

How is that racism? I am of European descent. So you are saying that I am a racist because I make fun of people from my own gene pool?

I guess calling me a racist is easier than arguing your point. You call me a racist so you can marginalize my opinion. This is a common tactic of the left and you just can't help yourself, can you."If ignorance is bliss, this lesson would appear to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deprive me of happiness, the pursuit of which is my unalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence. I therefore assert my patriotic prerogative not to know this material. I'll be out on the playground." -- Calvin

Bob, would it be possible to take the left-right stereotyping out of your arguments? Demonizing those with a different point of view than one's own is a common tactic of those on both sides (and sometimes the middle as well) of the political spectrum.

I mention this because I see and hear it far too often in political commentary, talk shows and blogs. I think it detracts from the general discourse.

Bob, are you seriously going to insult all Europeans (instead of making a rational argument, a common tactic of the right ) in one post, then claim it's all in the family the next? Your "defense" does a fine job of making you look silly, so I don't think I need to invest any more energy.

Nathan, I don't want to put words in Paul's mouth (again), but I don't think that was quite the position he was advocating. I fear you may be building a straw man out of Paul's small-scale example (or just joking, hard to tell). The finer points of quantum physics or evolutionary biology don't have nearly the impact on our lives that global climate change does. The idea that we may be doing very bad things to where we live does tend to take away our objectivity, which is probably one reason why his purely scientific issue has become political.

We have no control over universal constants or how critters have come to be in their present forms, but we do have some measure of control over how much we crap where we sleep.

Edit: Wish I'd seen Bill's comment before my crack on the right. At least mine has a smiley!

If only you had the same disgust with personal slander as you have for "left-right stereotyping". I guess it is ok for Jake but not for me?"If ignorance is bliss, this lesson would appear to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deprive me of happiness, the pursuit of which is my unalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence. I therefore assert my patriotic prerogative not to know this material. I'll be out on the playground." -- Calvin

Bob, it's not about favoring one person over another. I've pretty much given up on the talk shows, for example, not because I don't have opinions and enjoy good discourse, but for two reasons about how the arguments are conducted:

1. They take on a personal tone that too often consists of attacking the arguer rather than criticizing the ideas.

2. They employ stereotypes and attempt to demonize the opposing point of view. Also, there are too many coded words and phrases that both convey an underlying agenda and demonstrate a lack of originality in the thinking.

I would tend to agree with your comments. but in this case, you show that you are more offended by my conservative viewpoints than by Jake and his reckless accusations of racism, therefore, you nullify your argument in my point of view."If ignorance is bliss, this lesson would appear to be a deliberate attempt on your part to deprive me of happiness, the pursuit of which is my unalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence. I therefore assert my patriotic prerogative not to know this material. I'll be out on the playground." -- Calvin

All right, Bob. I don't advocate racism or other ethnocentrism. I am arguing that we advance the focus on the ideas when we abandon the references to left/right, liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat, red states/blue states, etc. that seem to have taken over our public discourse far too often lately.

are you seriously going to insult all Europeans (instead of making a rational argument, a common tactic of the right

Boy isn't that the truth....just look at Ron's response to my post in the immigration thread...instead of discussing the merits of issues, he just sneers at economists. The anti-intellectuallism of conservatives, the constant argument and sneering at ideas, instead of trying to develop solutions...I agree with Paul, its just a matter of time that they and their dated doctrine fade away with time. Luckily, a lot of the younger folks seem to be getting smarter.

Nathan, you are quite correct that no one on Earth but me (and my family) needs to care about the value of my home. I should not ask billions of people to impoverish themselves, even a little, for my personal benefit. But that's not really the point.

(Of course, if I DID ask everyone to conserve in order to keep my house above water, I'd hardly be alone. We are constantly asked to impoverish or constrain ourselves for the benefit of one or another small group. Every single wood frame home in the US costs thousands of dollars more to build because of import restrictions on lumber. These restrictions are to protect the jobs of a few thousand lumber mill workers. It would be much cheaper for the government to just pay these people to stay home and to allow unrestricted imports. But powerful lobbies won't let that happen. Similar things go on with dairy farmers, fishermen, textile workers, etc. But being common doesn't make this right.)

I said that my personal situation complicates the issue by making it very immediate and personal. I would assume the same about drunk driving for anyone who has lost a close family member to a drunk driver. That person may have a difficult time with attempts to find balanced responses to the problem. Similarly, someone in a declining industry in the US, perhaps a furniture maker, will have a much more visceral response to globalization and may get impatient with dry technical discussions of its benefits.

But that does not mean that all MADD members are rabid Prohibitionists or that every lathe operator wants to shut the Port of Los Angeles. It just means that they have to work a bit harder to separate their personal agendas from the broader issues. And it means that they'll have more difficulty with anyone who denies that there is an issue of importance at stake.

I cannot evaluate the science behind the climate change simulations and predictions. I don't claim to. The fact that I haven't hung a For Sale sign on my house yet shows that I'm not falling prey to any "scare tactics". Nor have I asked anyone to do anything self-injurious for my benefit (see my last post in the Global Warming thread). I just know that I can't wish away the issue. I have to take it seriously.But I realized I couldn't ask for Gods help while at the same time I felt hatred for the mixed up young man who had shot me. Isn't that the meaning of the lost sheep? We are all Gods children and therefore equally beloved by him. -- Ronald Reagan, The Reagan Diaries